Mentoring Program Report to the Membership Committee 2015/08

SAA Mentoring Program Subcommittee report to the Membership Committee 

Subcommittee Co-Chairs, Kate Dundon and Michael Zaidman

August 18, 2015

Administering the Mentorship Program

The following members are rotating off the Mentoring Program Subcommittee in 8/2015:

• Kate Dundon, Co-Chair
• Deborah Richards, member
• Brittany Turner, member

The following SAA members have agreed to join Subcommittee starting 8/2015:

• Gabrielle Spiers, Co-Chair
• Gabriela Redwine, member
• Kelly Spring, member

As of August 2, 2015, there were 67 Protégés and 62 Mentor volunteers active in the program (129 participants total). Of these, there are 5 Protégés waiting to be matched. Of the 62 Mentors currently matched, 1 has renewed five times, 6 have renewed four times and 16 have renewed three times. We aim to match Protégés with Mentors within two weeks of application. For the total from the SAA Mentoring Program Database 2011/09/04 to 2015/08/02, there have been 263 Mentors and 317 Protégés.

Subcommittee activities

• Ongoing tasks that maintain the program:
  
  • Reviewed and updated the database Protégés and Mentors to identify matches and manage information about participants.
  • Contacted recently "expired" Mentors to see if they are interested in being matched with another Protégé, and submitted calls to the memberships of various SAA sections and roundtables for Mentors. (Of particular note are the efforts of subcommittee member Devhra BennettJones, who was successful in reestablishing the participation of 15 recently expired mentors.)
• Established a contact form on the Mentoring Program website to reduce spam sent to the subcommittee listserv.
• Met via conference call on 12/9/2014 to discuss ways of promoting the program, particularly during National Mentoring Month.
• Revised the Mentoring Program participant survey from 2012-2013 to favor more quantifiable data. This survey was created in SAA’s Survey Monkey account. A summary of the survey results is appended to this report.
• Distributed the new survey via email to all active program participants in January (National Mentoring Month). This email was also intended to address an issue expressed by several former survey participants: the need for more communication from the Mentoring Program in support mentoring connections (see the 2013 report to the Membership Committee for a summary of survey results).
• Publicized the Mentoring Program in 3 issues of In the Loop under the tagline: “January is National Mentoring Month.”
• Worked with the Electronic Records Section and Gabriela Redwine to brainstorm ways to better connect archivists seeking advice and mentorship in managing born digital archival material and experienced digital archivists. We decided to pursue a small, co-sponsored initiative in which ERS facilitates a connection, or match, between students who are presenting posters related to born digital archives, and seasoned digital archivists at the 2015 Annual Meeting. The mentoring subcommittee will follow up with the participants to invite them to apply to the mentoring program. We are hoping this will increase the number of digital archivists participating in the mentoring program.
• Developed an orientation document with links to various workflows and templates for new subcommittee members, as well as a list of duties for incoming subcommittee co-chairs.

Ongoing issues/ goals for the upcoming year

• Continue to foster meaningful mentoring relationships between SAA members by matching Mentors with Protégés and soliciting Mentor volunteers via group listservs and personal connections.
• Work with the Electronic Records Section to develop a forum for better connecting mid-career archivists seeking advice on managing born digital issues with experienced digital archivists. New subcommittee member Gabriela Redwine will lead this effort.
• Analyze the less favorable responses from the 2015 survey, and discuss how we can address these concerns and generally improve the experience of program participants.
• Continue to promote the program during National Mentoring Month by contacting active participants in January each year, and highlighting the program in “In the Loop” during this time.

Submitted by Kate Dundon and Michael Zaidman, SAA Mentoring Program Co-Chairs

SAA Mentoring Program Subcommittee report to the Membership Committee

2015 Mentor Survey Report

Subcommittee Co-Chair, Michael Zaidman

August 14, 2015

The Mentoring Program of the Society of American Archivists sent out a survey to the SAA Mentoring Program participants via the SAA listserv in January of 2015. There were 38 respondents to the survey.

The nine questions in the survey and answer options are below followed by a synopsis.

 1. Are you currently, or have you previously served as a Mentor or as a Protégé?

Answers: Mentor or Protégé

2. Mentors: why did you decide to participate in the SAA Mentoring Program? (choose all that apply)

A: Service to the profession; Enjoy connecting with new professionals; General professional involvement

3. Protégés: why did you decide to participate in the SAA Mentoring Program? (choose all that apply)

A: Career advice; Education advice; Resume/CV advice; Networking

4. How long have you, or how long did you participate in the Mentoring Program?

A: Less than 1 year; 1 year; 2 years; 3+ years

5. Was a match made in a timely fashion?

A: Yes; No

6. Do you think that you were matched with the right person?

A: Yes; No

7. In general, was your experience serving as a Mentor or as a Protégé fulfilling?

A: Yes, No

8. If No, what were the primary reasons it was not fulfilling? (choose all that apply)

A: Mentor or protégé was unresponsive; Mentor or protégé did not understand or was not informed of his or her role; Mentor or protégé had dissimilar interests; Lack of time to commit to the program.

9. Please list any ways you think the Mentoring Program experience could be improved.

A: 17 responses.

Results

1. Of the 38 respondents, 24 were mentors and 14 were protégés.

2. 23 of the 24 mentors responded that they signed up to pay it forward or to give back to the profession, which is a trend that hopefully always continues.

3. All 14 of the protégés responded that career advice was the major factor as to why they joined the program while networking was a close second.  Clearly, the protégés want to know how to get a job and who do they have to meet to do so.

4. Most of the respondents said they were new to the program and only 23% had participated more than three years.

5. An overwhelming 94% said they were matched in a timely fashion.  Clearly, the subcommittee is doing an outstanding job getting matches made quickly.

6. However, of the matches, only 71% felt that the match was made correctly.  Perhaps having a better match might take a longer period of time, but this would probably make the matches happier.

7. Unfortunately, only 65% (22 people) of the matches felt that they had a fulfilling experience.

8. However, of the 35% (12 people) that had a negative experience, two said that they didn’t have time and 6 people said they were unresponsive, so, really, that isn’t the committee’s fault.  A few people mentioned their difference in age was a big factor in not working well.  The older person had too much experience and couldn’t relate to what a new person in the field was going through.

9. Ways to improve the program were varied, but here are just a few suggestions:

We should encourage matches to contact each other on the phone rather than e-mail.  Perhaps by talking, it would make the match a bit more personal than e-mail.  A lot of the matches are not local, but if any are, a meet and greet should be encouraged.  Of course, most protégés want matches locally, but we just need to reiterate that this is not very likely, but we try our best to match preferences.

If time permits for the subcommittee member that makes a match, he or she could provide a follow-up e-mail to both recipients three months later to see how the relationship is progressing.  This personal touch might clear up some issues if there are any.  There was talk about doing this during National Mentoring Month in January, but as a subcommittee we could discuss this additional responsibility.

Another suggestion from the survey would be to provide guidelines or suggestions of what to expect as a match.  How often should they communicate?  Should you Skype/Facetime?  A lot of this information is already provided in the introductory e-mail template, but doing the follow-up e-mail three months later might also help alleviate any stress in the relationship.

If there was a better way to renew instead of having the applicant re-send their information in would be nice.  Perhaps we could change the language of our e-mail to ask them to simply reply and then the subcommittee member on duty could duplicate their record in the database and then just eliminate the columns of the previously matched protégés and dates, etc.  We could add these directions on how to do this in our workflow.